The August 23rd Christian Science Monitor weekly review contained an item in "How the World Press Views America" (page 29) that caught my eye. Entitled "Western media bias," it purported to be an excerpted translation of an article by Pravda political correspondent Vadim Trukhachev. As a professor of Russian politics who has been reading the Russian press for decades, the text seemed so odd that I simply had to check the original.
The original article, "Now Western Mass Media are Writing Differently about the Instigator of the War in the Caucasus" of August 10th, is a commendably broad ranging review of Western press commentary about the anniversary of the Russo-Georgian conflict, with extensive excerpts from the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, Le Monde, Liberation, Financial Times Deutschland and the Frankfurter Rundschau.
The Monitor's translation begins with a small error, saying that the anniversary of the war "has become the main topic of the week for the Western media," when in fact the article says only that it was "one of the main topics."
The crux of the Monitor's translation, however, is this passage: "Many people in the West know, that their journalists lied about the war in Yugoslavia, about the war in Iraq and about the war in South Ossetia. Most articles published by the Western media do not contain a single piece of truth. They were published to abuse and humiliate Russia."
This is a far cry from what the article actually says. Here is a complete translation of this passage: "Today their [western -- NP] readers and viewers know that they were lied to about the war in Yugoslavia, about the war in Iraq, about the war in Southern Ossetia. And the western press is, clumsily and awkwardly, attempting to put a good face on a bad game. What the western mass media write is simply astonishing. The majority of articles about South Ossetia and Russia contain not a single fact, but only invective and insult."
Not only is the end of this passage mangled beyond recognition, but the Monitor fails to mention that it is not even by Trukhachev. Rather, it is part of his interview with Inal Pliev, assistant to the first deputy prime minister of South Ossetia.
It would have been far more enlightening to readers had the Monitor chosen to include Pliev's final words on the matter: "All in all, western (and Georgian) press coverage on this issue is, in essence, a compilation of standard accusations that, with slight variations, can be attached to anyone you don't like. We should not orient ourselves to them, compare ourselves to them, and especially not become like them. We need to do our job honestly, respectfully, correctly, showing respect for the reader and telling him only the truth."
These are sentiments to which, I hope, all journalists would ascribe.
Sincerely,
Professor Nicolai N. Petro
Department of Political Science
Washburn Hall, University of Rhode
Island
Kingston, RI 02881 (USA)
Comments